What is Truth?

There has been only one occasion in my life when I entertained a woman in my own house to a three-course meal made by my own fair (or not-so-fair) hand.  That was about thirty years ago, and how I did it still amazes me, knowing the extent of my culinary skills.  More of that later.

My title is Biblical in origin, coming from John's account of Jesus' trials.  The Jewish leaders wanted rid of Him and had charged Him with what would best achieve this end.  To their own council, the charge had been blasphemy: He had claimed to be the Son of God.  But in front of Pilate, the Roman governor, the charge was sedition: He had claimed to be a king, and thus undermined Caesar's authority.  So Pilate was faced with examining this claim of kingship.  Jesus had told him that the reason He came into the world was to testify to the truth (John 18:37).

A problem of the written word is knowing where emphasis should be put: emphasise the wrong word and you can change the whole meaning of a sentence.  When it comes to the Bible, we have to remember too that we are always reading it in translation, which can add to the uncertainty.  Some versions say that Pilate 'retorted' "What is truth?"; others have it that he merely 'said' these words (which is closer to the original Greek text).  One word gives the impression of aggression, the other allows the possibility that it was anger at being called out early in the morning to judge something that the Jews ought to have dealt with themselves, or contempt for the whole concept of truth ... again, depending on the emphasis with which the words had been spoken.

One of the commentaries on this passage makes this observation about truth. "Pilate was cynical; he thought that all truth was relative.  To many government officials, truth was whatever the majority of people agreed with or whatever helped advance their own personal power and political goals."

Jesus himself had earlier declared to the people, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32).  He meant free from the slavery imposed by lies.  If we tell different people different untruths, we have to remember what we have actually said to whom, so that our lies are consistent.  Otherwise, our façade is betrayed.  By telling everyone the simple truth - which had probably added to our confusion about our network of lies in the first place - that strain, the slavery to our fabrication, is removed.

Back to that meal.  It almost ended in disaster.  As my friend was leaving, in the course of saying my goodbyes I had reached up to unfasten the door.  This done, as I lowered my hand again, it had brushed the front of her jumper as she was putting her coat on.  To my surprise, she suddenly burst out, "Were you trying to grope me?"  Nothing had been further from my mind, but it took what felt like half-an-hour for me to convince her that, if that had been my intent - which it wasn't - there would have been a far better time and place than at the door as she was about to leave.  I'm pleased to report that this wasn't the end of our friendship and there were other dates before it concluded in the amicable recognition that our cultural tastes were too diverse.

The incident demonstrates that truth varies according to our viewpoint.  I knew my own motivations, or rather the lack of them; for all I know, my friend may have been on her guard the whole evening at being alone with an almost unknown man in his own home, and readily jumped to what was the wrong conclusion in her reaction to something that I was unaware of until she spoke.

"If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." is a propaganda theory often wrongly attributed to Joseph Goebbels.  However, it was part of Nazi thinking from as early as 1925 when Hitler was writing 'Mein Kampf'.  It's a theory that works, though, ... especially when employed by those whose position and authority puts them beyond reproach.  It's not until people find that their personal experiences differ from public proclamation that the truth finally emerges.  Remember that bus, and the famous "£350 million for the NHS"?

Where do your sympathies lie: with a football manager who, when interviewed after a significant defeat, blames the referee for bias and the sun in his team's eyes, or with one who is prepared to state with regret, 'we just weren't good enough' or 'we took our eye off the ball'?

Whether it's football, or local or national government, I think we all crave honesty and openness, so far as it's in keeping with national security.  If something isn't possible, we'd like to be told why and hear suggestions about how underlying needs might be met, rather than hear excuses and blame for absence or delay placed on other parties or organisations.

Intense campaigning for the elections next month is just beginning.  Above all, it's a time when we all will be faced with the challenge of whose version of 'truth' we believe.